ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS

Organizational Analysis
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Organizational Analysis
Introduction
GM is a company that has been in the car production business and has earned the earned the trust of many. In recent times, however, the culture in the company had led to a crisis. The diagnosis of the problem reflected an internal issue with the relationship between the staff and top management. The GM case study is a miserable culture crisis that we can all acquire from, as culture is the most influential energy within a company. The case study revealed a lack of team spirit and communication; risk management was also part of the issue reflecting the internal makeup of the enterprise. When the crisis occurred, the inability to address the problem for 11 years was showed that they lack a sense of urgency. Also, the failure of the engineers to escalate the issue to the top management is Indicative of the staff to management culture crisis (GM Culture Crisis 2014).
Organization Modeling
The corporate behavioral model is utilized in the case study is System Model: this type of behavioral model provide a configuration as well as team setting, considering each to perform around his high points with regards to objectives, capacities, and possibilities. The aim of this model is to balance out the purpose of the individuals with the organizational goals (Wilson1999). In GM, engineers were allowed to work independently, and professionally within company guidelines, so while that sound right, it could be counter productive if there are no checks and balances from the top management.

Lawyers, engineer, and investigators evaluated the ignition switch issue, but no one told the highest level of the company.
Other companies in similar industries use different approaches like that work for them but may not necessarily work for GM. For example Autocratic model and Supportive model. Authoritarian model functions under the principle of authority. The average in this model have relatively low skills and reports all duties to management. One of the most significant problems with such a model is that the organization teams are necessary to micromanage the staff- where one decision has to be made and observe all the details. Supportive model on the other hand, is a model that focuses on aspiring leadership and is not grounded on controller and government rather it attempts to motivate workers through the employee-manager relationship at the same time is concerned with how the staff is treated on a time-to-time foundation The idea embedded in this model is to encourage staff over and done with a positive workstation where employee ideas count and frequently embraced.( Blois, W et al., 2007l). GM’s behavioral model would have functioned better if it had a taste of the models mentioned above, because while supervision is necessary to support for personal idea and development is also needed to grow.
Various industries use different organizational models because each establishment is founded on individual core values and principle, so when it comes to organizational models there is no “one size fits all” approach. For example, Coca-cola is a brand that consumed worldwide, and the company organizes and structures itself in a way that reflects that. Each region uses an approach that favors its customer base- in other words the organization tries to meet the need of local market sensitivity, showing that the culture of the company is one that reflects for values their customers (Veale, D. J. 1996).The reason why the organizational model for coca cola is different from GM is that there are major differences internally and externally with varying consumers base, product type, and marketing styles. Etc.
Culture is a part of an organization that is malleable and can adapt and evolve through influences to create value, although for large organizations culture can be difficult to change, it can be done systematically. The culture at the GM is on that reflected conflicting messages from top management, 1) “when safety is at issue, the cost is irrelevant” and 2) “cost is everything” (GM Culture Crisis 2014). “It is widely accepted that GM has been focused on costs—squeezing suppliers to get as much as it could but paying as little as possible. While that sounds like a good business approach, it created an environment that provides a useful context when examining how GM might have plunged itself into trouble with the ignition switch” (GM Culture Crisis 2014). Culture has a strong impact on the organizational model as the example of GM shows.
Organizational models in the industry should involve a more hands-on approach that is born out of a blend of several organizational models. For GM system model, supportive model and a little bit of autocratic model is needed. Similar industries apply several models to ensure that its goals are attained. For example, the same company – Toyota makes use of its corporate structure to advocate for business objectives and planed direction. The efficiency of organizational model maximization by Toyota in sustaining a robust worldwide presence portrays its capacity to utilize its corporate structure in the maximization of its effectiveness as well as capacity use. In quintessence, this organization chart contributes to the Toyota’s achievement in the world market (Cousins, 2002).
Motivation theory is concerned with the processes that explain why and how human behavior is activated. Organizational modeling has adjusted at GM after the crisis, and the company had been able to remodel its organizational behavior to align with current trends, for instance, the new culture change at GM involves top executive having a keen interest in production, getting closer to the design team and also getting close to the customer. There is now also accountability for results and being very transparent. GM now has a commitment to product excellence globally spending more time fixing problems, production, revenue and customer. Changing a company culture takes time and commitment and lessons learned in the past is a valuable tool for GM to move forward with.
In summary, risk management that functions best is one that you never hear about publicly. The ability to see danger from 5 miles away, anticipate and move is the best was to get an integrated view of risk. General Motors ignition switch crisis was a risk management problem that leads to about 13 deaths and the recall of many cars. GM had a sad culture crisis, and this social dysfunction went unnoticed for a long time leading to series of catastrophe. The investigation revealed that the problem was precisely emphasized short of its resolution, relegating customer safety to the background. The culture in the company had a lot to do the with problem because culture is from the inside out, it is the cores of the company, and lack of competence and diligence is reflective of the internal struggles in the enterprise. GM has learned and since adjusted it organizational modeling to be inclusive, and it can only get better.
Leadership Theories
GM (General Motors) is well known in the automotive industry. In February 2014 the CEO announced a faulty ignition switch problem in the cars. As a result of the recall, 33 deaths and over 2000 claims for deaths and physical injuries were filed, however, only 4% of these claims have been deemed eligible for compensation after an investigation. GM’s ignition problem had been an ongoing issue for over ten years, but instead of fixing the problem, GM advised customers to take precautionary measure so as to save the company time and money. The choice to save money for the company at the clients expense lead to the crisis that befell the company in 2014.
In the case study the organizational model used was a traditional hierarchical model. The traditional hierarchical model comes with many challenges because it was a model used in the military as a way to show command. With hierarchical models, communication flows from top to bottom which means collaboration is non-existent, engagement suffers, and innovation stagnates (Hofmann 1997). In most organizations management looks for a way to soften the hierarchical roles, making communications flow smoother and improving employees experience.
Different organizational models can be applied in an organization to form its culture depending on the needs of the organization. GM started out with a hierarchical model and made its way to a softer model with the change of its CEO. The new CEO Mary Barra knew that there was a problem, and decided to shake things up in the company by instituting a top-down change approach with the purpose of aiding the organization work as a whole (Kuppler 2015). To significant changes that needed to be made were the culture and leadership. Many people wanted GM to take responsibility for the problem that leads to several deaths, and the fact that nothing was done for over a decade made a huge impact on the company. The recall was just the right fit for the situation on hand because it satisfied the need for management to take responsibility, the new changes in CEO of GM, better organizational structure, and the loyalty of the customers, the company had more motivation than ever. Mary Barra’s action to get rid of the dishonest employees showed that it was time for a change. She also pledges her honest to the public and her employees and took full responsibility for the ignition switch issue (Barnes 2013).
Organizational Culture
Culture is the most influential dynamism in an organization. In GM, leadership was clearly lacking, and the general culture was to allow for delegation and not to be involved in it. The change in leadership style came as a result of the problem on hand, and management took an approach that put the blame on the lower employee. Due to the liability action, the organization as a whole faced internal and external influences under the beam of a spotlight. Internally, the fewer employees were concerned with how business was run on a daily basis to maximize profit and minimize loss and not on safety. Eternally there was a recommendation on how to remedy the situation and how a changed leadership could solve the problem (Kuppler 2015).
Culture in GM seems to follow a tradition where employee involvement was not awarded, allowing for the lack of ethics among lower level employee to unquestioned. Management as a whole dished out conflicting messages as to how things should be done within the organization.
Change in governance structure, and procedure and policies are usually in a situation of cause and effect in which a change in one affects and probably would change the other (Stylianou & Savva 2016). The leadership style and organizational culture always affects and influences the employee plan for success. The cause and effect rule is responsible for the way employee understand and apply work ethics as a norm that complies with policies and procedures (Kohler 2016).
In the case of GM, no one took responsibility to fix the problem or raise the concerns to the management of the company, who also did not care how the lower level was handling business. The upper-level staff’s involvement would have shown high culture and leadership on the part of management. A lack of unity in the culture of a company leads to the current situation presented in the case study. There are valuable points to learn from the case study of GM to avoid similar mistakes. The influence of the leadership of an organization always produces a more proactive team.
Insights and Conclusions
Organizational culture is essential in determining the behavior of each member of an organization; therefore there is need to value it as a significant reliant variable in the process of developing firms. The organizational culture is generated and integrated by the company leaders (Armstrong, 2009); therefore they are considered as the managers of culture transformation. Since leaders have the power over manipulation of the perceptions, attitudes as well as the organizational behavior of its members, they also have the ability to shape and positioning the corporate’s culture. As leaders take note of their production responsibilities, they need to understand their mandate in generating and supporting various culture types. Therefore, an organization’s capability of changing its culture is predominantly controlled by leadership (Finchum & Rhodes, 2005). Through the implementation of such responsibilities, a firm can achieve its objectives. The GM crisis serves as an accurate reflection of how leadership dictates the organizational culture. Therefore, for the success of any organization, the leadership theory in place should complement the corporate culture as it is for the opposite.
GM did not come out as the first ever company to encounter a cultural crisis. In the contemporary society with a fast moving world, many profound organizations are trapped in their old mentality. For about 11 years, the ignition switch defect was recognized by various GM’s inside individuals. However, due to a clashing leadership style with the organizational culture, no one seemed to express this issue or take an important responsibility. MG’s leadership model assumed in the 11 years before the crisis was a traditional hierarchical model (Kupper, 2015), this organizational model is known for its command power as well as restricted communication only from top to down of the organization. Having such a leadership model the employees end up having limited interaction with their leaders; hence no predicted culture instilled in the employees who end up choosing a self-suitable culture. The traditional hierarchical model restricts the establishment of culture by embracing the delegation of duties with reduced involvement in decision making. It could have been because of the uncomplimentary leadership to an organizational culture that resulted in practices such as reluctance in raising issues, transfer of blames, lack of response to a recognized problem, conflicting information from top management, and lack of sense for urgency (Kuppler, 2015). The employees in such a leadership system wait for the allocation of duties, as they are not willing to take responsibilities that are not delegated which they feel it is not their responsibility to express.
Nonetheless, the taking over of GM by a new CEO, Mary Barra, sees the change of the organizational model by instituting a top-down change approach. The essence of this method constructs a leadership complementary corporate culture that will stir it towards success. In the presence of such a leadership motivated not only the employees but also presented the significance of taking responsibilities, an excellent organization structure as well as improving the loyalty of the clients. Additionally, the decision-makers benefit a lot from this organization model allows sharing of information, and since decision-makers require high-level information, their decisions will be concrete and precise with to the issue of concern (McAndrews, Kunreuther, & Bronznic, 2011).
The organizational leadership style and internal culture highly depend on each other for functionality; hence the change of either would influence the other. It is recommended that a potential solution towards challenges related to changing the corporate culture could comprise paying attention to the leadership style. The incorporated cultures apply a substantial influence on the organizational behavior and hence, on the firm performance (Bell, Chan, & Nel, 2014). For instance, in the case of the General Motors, as a mitigation process for the culture crisis, the new CEO decides to induce a new leadership style, top-down approach where the CEO gains the mandate to make the general decisions and offer directives to their assistance and the rest of the organizations. Despite it being limiting on the involvement of the employees the style is keen to provide the right direction during the crisis as the leader expresses their leadership and decision-making prowess. The change of leadership style in GM had a direct impact on the internal culture, all the employees together with other company members had the responsibility of being accountable of all the incidences on the firm. The top-down leadership gave GM CEO more mandates to fire and hire, as the primary path of reinstating GM’s superiority. Therefore, despite it being somehow similar to the hierarchical organizational model, the flow of information would not be interfered as the information follows the order from top to the grass level.
Additionally, the introduction of the top-down approach impacted on the internal culture as there was the ability to manage the employees with ease and offering guidance where there was incompetence. Therefore, the organizational is made to work as a whole where people are allotted duties with guidance to meet the expected goal. Through this accountability, it is well dictated since there are fewer individuals in possession of overall power there is always the person with the “final say” portraying the art of responsibility (McAndrews, Kunreuther, & Bronznic, 2011). Unlike the hierarchical where the employees were to receive the commands and adhere to them regardless of their incompetency, the top-down approach seeks to involve all the staff assuring their potential through a guide. So as to achieve this uniform performance, the employees must be willing to adjust failure to which they are laid off from the organization. Therefore, this impacts on the loyalty and responsibility taking of the employees.
As changing of the leadership style impacts on the internal organizational culture, the two also influences the employee’s behavior (Raza, 2016). The worker’s behavior is majorly depicted by their skills, knowledge, beliefs and attitudes that develop as a result of being a member of a given corporate. Despite there being real stiff challenges facing the culture change idea, in the case of a crisis the company lacks an alternative (Bell, Chan, & Nel, 2014). So as to achieve these cultural changes that influence the employee behaviors, different leadership styles were likely to be induced at the General Motors organization. For instance, the use of strategic leadership style which assumes the top-down leadership approaches granting the full mandate to the head of the organization. The CEO considers this type of leadership style as she implements the firing process of the fifteen workers associated with GM crisis (Kuppler, 2015). The laying off of employees would eventually raise the concerns about the new leadership in place, hence stir the conformation of the attitudes, beliefs, and skills to meet the demands failure to which one would be dropped from their duties.
Besides that, there is the use of the transformational leadership as the critical approach towards attaining new employee behavior demanding for their responsibility (Raza, 2016). The inclusion of the recommendations such as, “Implement regular communications with staff to raise awareness about safety and reinforce the tone at the top” (Kuppler, 2015), implies the need for a change. The awareness has to be done for the employees to understand the importance of safety guidelines in the GM organization. The idea seeks to impart some knew the information in the workers to enhance their competency. Additionally, “Visibly promote and rigorously enforce the non-retaliation policy” (Kuppler, 2015), the suggestion seeks to influence the perceptions of the employee. It could be easy to believe that the GM would set up a revenge program once it realizes the supplier who would have set them into such a stalemate. Eventually, the attitude of the employees towards the organization and other individuals is moderated giving them the ability to understand that any organization can encounter culture crisis. Furthermore, with this form of leadership a lot of changes can be attained in the GM organization starting with leadership approach change, organization culture change, and finally seeks to improve the worker’s behavior. The change of culture and employee’s behavior has a significant indication on the goal of transformation, as the two must influence each other to obtain a different outcome. Therefore, the various leadership styles embraced by an organization as a process of handling a cultural crisis would affect the firm, but both of them would impart some unique behavior in the employees.
References
Armstrong, M. (2009). Handbook of Human Resources Practice. (11th ed) London, Philadelphia.
Barnes, A. K. (2013). Effective management. [electronic resource] :
20 keys to a winning culture. [Alexandria, Va. : ASTD Press, c2013] (Norwood, Mass. : Books24x7.com [generator])
Bell, C., Chan, M., & Nel, P. (2014). The Impact of Participative and Directive Leadership on Organisational Culture: An Organisational Development Perspective. Mediterranean Journal Of Social Sciences, 5(23), 1970-1985. http://dx.doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n23p1970
Blois, W., Cook, C. W., & Hunsaker, P. L. (2007). Management
& Organizational behavior (2nd European edition). Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education.
Cousins, P. D. (2002). A conceptual model for managing long-term
Inter-Organisational relationships. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 8(2), 71-82.
Fincham, R., Rhodes, P. (2005). Principles of Organisational Behaviour (5th ed). New York; Oxford University Press.
Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale
of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23(6), 723-744.
Kohler, R. (2016). Optimization of Leadership Style: New Approaches
to Effective Multicultural Leadership in International Teams. [Place of publication not identified] : Springer, 2016.
Kuppler, T. (2015) The GM Culture Crisis: What leaders must learn from
this culture case study. Retrieved from http://switchandshift.com/the-gm-culture-crisis
McAndrews, C., Kunreuther, F., & Bronznic, S. (2011). Structuring Leadership: Alternative Models for Distributing Power and Decision-Making in Nonprofit Organizations. Buildingmovement.Org, 1-12.
Raza, A. (2016). 12 Different Types of Leadership Styles. WiseToast. Retrieved 2 December 2016, from http://wisetoast.com/12-different-types-of-leadership-styles/
Stylianou, V., & Savva, A. (2016). Investigating the Knowledge
Management Culture. Universal Journal Of Educational Research, 4(7), 1515-1521.
The GM Culture Crisis: What leaders must learn from this culture case study. (2014). Retrieved November 10, 2016, from http://switchandshift.com/the-gm-culture-crisis
Veale, D. J. (1996). Mentoring and coaching as part of a human resource
development strategy: an example at Coca-Cola Foods. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17(3), 16-20.
Wilson, T. D. (1999). Models in information behavior research. Journal
of documentation, 55(3), 249-270.